property-placeholder.xml

[Tom Zeller]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Cantor, Scott <cantor.2 at osu.edu> wrote:
> On 11/17/14, 12:37 PM, "Rod Widdowson" <rdw at steadingsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>>All the services definitions still include this file.
>>
>>It is obviously not doing any harm being there, but do we actually need
>>it?

I think so. Of course, if for example attribute-filter.xml does not
reference any properties then no, we don't need it there. However, my
assumption was that we would load placeholder configurer support for
the services in case someone decides to use a property in the service
config.

>>I know that under certain circumstances idp.properties is always being
>>loaded, but the services load inside a different SpringApplicationContext.
>
> My impression had been that when you cross a context boundary, the
> property-placeholder isn't inherited. I thought that was why we had them
> there (and why we had the relevant Spring in the webflow bean files).

Right. There's not much there, but IDP-364 is the relevant issue,
which has a link to the 2005 mailing list thread where the placeholder
configurer behavior across contexts is mentioned.

>>An empirical test seems to indicate that we can do without them.

Well, maybe something has changed since I added
property-placeholder.xml. As a quick test, I would uncomment the LDAP
data connector in attribute-resolver.xml and make sure those
properties resolve properly. If they do without
property-placeholder.xml being injected as a configuration resource,
then I would investigate further.